Global Warming Debates - Assignment Example

ENV 121: Intro to Environmental Science Debate Discussion Assignment INSTRUCTIONS: Please fill in the table below based on what you heard in the debate presentation. There is 1 other question that should be answered at the end. Type up your questions and submit to the Angel DropBox by Tuesday, Feb. 21st by midnight. Motion: Global Warming is not a crisis FOR: IS NOT a crisis Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT since 1983, previously held professorships at Harvard, where he received his A.B., S.M. and Ph.D., and the University of Chicago.  He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the recipient of various awards.  He is the author or co-author of three books and over 200 papers.  His current research is on climate sensitivity, atmospheric convection and the general circulation of the atmosphere. Michael Crichton is a writer and filmmaker, best known as the author of Jurassic Park and the creator of "ER." Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. He has been a visiting instructor at Cambridge University and MIT. Crichtons 2004 bestseller, State of Fear, challenged extreme anthropogenic warming scenarios. Philip Stott is an Emeritus Professor and biogeographer from the University of London, UK. Although a scientist, for the past ten years he has also employed modern techniques of deconstruction to grand environmental narratives, like “global warming.”  Stott was editor of the internationally-important Journal of Biogeography for 18 years. He broadcasts widely on TV and radio, and writes regularly on environmental issues for The Times of London, among other publications. AGAINST: Global warming is a crisis Richard C.J. Somerville is Distinguished Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. He is a theoretical meteorologist and an expert on computer simulations of the atmosphere. Among many honors, Somerville is a Fellow of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Meteorological Society.  He has received awards for both his research and his popular book, The Forgiving Air: Understanding Environmental Change. Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. His publications include studies of past, present and potential future climates. Scientific American cited him as a top 50 Research Leader in 2004, and he has worked on education and outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences, among others. He is a contributing editor at RealClimate.org. Brenda Ekwurzel works on the national climate program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Prior to joining UCS, she was on the faculty of the University of Arizona.  Doctorate research was at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University and post-doctoral research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. 1. Please fill in the Table based on what was presented in the debate. No crisis (Lindzen) Crisis (Somerville) Main arguments Sea level is constant based on 10 year period studies. Increase in CO2 is acceptable because of industrialization. No significant changes in temperature. There are other factors needed to be looked at other than greenhouse gases like pollution, volcanoes, etc. Referring to IPCC, warmth over the last half century is unusual. Intense tropical cyclone activity has increased in the North Atlantic region. Global ocean has been warming and rising. Mainstream science has predicted and has been expecting such changes. Scientists are also predicting a continuity of these changes. Comment on how effective or ineffective they were in presenting their arguments. Lindzen presented his argument with facts all throughout the speech but does not rely on mainstream science and organizations. He addressed the physical facts with measurements. Somerville used the authority of the IPCC and mainstream science in presenting his argument. He cemented his argument by stating that science has decided this is happening and this will continue to happen. Who did the better job? Why? I believe Lindzen did a better job in presenting his arguments as he was able to firmly give resolve to his arguments. Unlike Somerville, Lindzen seemed to check on his opponent’s possible arguments, that’s why he started out by saying they are not disputing of the fact about global warming rather they are questioning the notion that it is presently a crisis. Somerville on the other hand takes off with a cemented argument based on mainstream science. No crisis (Crichton) Crisis (Schmidt) Main arguments The consensus of science may be wrong. How much temperature change should there be in global warming since the temperature really did not change much. Models indicate that the expected changes in temperature are actually lower when the time arrived. The human factor in affecting global warming is also responsible for the decrease in carbon dioxide because of the movement towards becoming more environment friendly. There are more pressing matters such as poverty. These issues need attending now compared to looking into the future. The nature of the debate: Whether global warming is a crisis or not is a scientific decision or issue. Deciding what to do about it is a political issue. Science can inform the decisions but it can’t dictate the society what to do. Different kinds of knowledge have different kinds of certainty. Human activity impacts global warming. Changes are happening. Political debates become shifted in the scientific arena when scientific results are perceived to have political or moral implications. This makes arguments seem more logical. Comment on how effective or ineffective they were in presenting their arguments. Does not refute the facts of global warming, greenhouse effect and human factors in increasing the global temperature. Stated that there are more pressing matters than the issue of global warming, as such, showing that global warming is not a crisis. Gave arguments on how to determine fallacies and scientific sounding arguments that are not scientific. With this, speaker declared that arguments should be scientific, with basis and without the use of fallacies, something that was being done by the other camp. Focused on how arguments are stated rather than giving reason on why global warming is a crisis. Very good presentation. Made audience think about how arguments are made and if they are scientific or political in nature. With this, speaker showed that the global warming is indeed a crisis as he tries to show that the other team’s arguments are political in nature. Who did the better job? Why? I believe both speakers did a good job since they were able to justify their arguments by the use of examples and anecdotes. The only difference lies in how the arguments were stated and justified. Crichton specifically argued that there are other issues that are fit to be considered as crisis than global warming. Schmidt, on the other hand, broke the other team’s nature of arguments, stating that they are fallacies and scientific sounding but in truth are fantasies. No crisis (Stott) Crisis (Ekwurzel) Main arguments Science does not progress by consensus; it progresses by falsification and by paradigm shifts. Climate always changes. It is always cooling or warming, never stable. Rise in temperature is caused by human activity. The rise in temperature, no matter how small, is significant to the earth even if it not to the human body. Humans should not ignore the symptoms of global warming, as this is tantamount to ignoring fever of a child. This will result to greater risks. Humans need to treat the illness. Human activity limits the earth’s capacity to clean up. What we do today affects the earth’s future state, how warm it will be in the next decades or centuries. Comment on how effective or ineffective they were in presenting their arguments. Claims that the because of the consensus created by science, we are faced with false information. Argued using the paradigm shift, which is effective in showing the difference between truth and false arguments. Focused on the impacts of global warming and how we can treat it. With this, Ekwurzel puts emphasis on the idea that global warming is a crisis. Evoking images of the future is helpful in putting her point. Who did the better job? Why? I believe that Ekwurzel did a better job in emphasizing arguments against the motion. She was able to present facts and reasons, and solutions, which even more accentuated that global warming is indeed a crisis. If we need to do something now instead of later, even it is for a long-term solution, then the issue must be a crisis. QUESTION #2: Based on the arguments that were presented in the debate – did it change or influence your opinion about global warming? Explain why and what particular arguments you found persuasive. If your opnion didn’t change – explain why and what you feel is the correct side of the argument. I believe in the fact that global warming is happening. With all those I have heard, I believe that the most persuasive argument I found was Stott’s, making me realizing that indeed, humans tend to rely on consensus to find something truthful even if it is not. With the issue of global warming, there is a consensus that it is something catastrophic or destructive and needed to be addressed immediately. What I am seeing is that humans have continuously addressed the issue of global warming, thus, it is not a crisis any longer. Humans have continuously searched for ways and means to deplete the use of harmful substances for environmental purposes. And this is an answer to a constantly changing society and environment not a specific answer for global warming. Read More